About Me

A very warm welcome to the blog of Madhwa Brahmins community.We, Madhwa Brahmins are followers of Jagadguru Sriman Madhwacharya. We originally hail from places in Karnataka and the neighboring states of Maharashtra, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu and Kerala. Our main dialects are Kannada, Tulu, Marathi, Telugu and Konkani.

As the above shloka from khila vAyustuti explains, Sri Madhwacharya (also known by the names Poornaprajna and Anandateertha) is the third incarnation of Lord MukhyaprAna Vaayu, after Lord Hanuman and Lord Bheemasena. He is the chief proponent of TattvavAda, popularly known as Dvaita. He was born on Vijayadashami day of 1238 CE at Paajaka Kshetra, a small village near Udupi. He is the 22nd commentator on the Brahma sutras of Lord Sri Veda Vyasa.

Kindly note that this blog contains important topics discussed in our Orkut community and some articles on tattvavAda philosophy. All the topics can be found in the BLOG ARCHIVE (right side)

13 December, 2009

aham brahmAsmi: an explanation from tatvavAda view

Hare Srinivasa

Source: dvaita dot org

Author: Sri NAPS Rao

These postings shall touch upon Advaitic interpretations of Aham BrahmAsmi and how the explanation of Acharya Madhwa counters the explanation of Advaita and then gives the correct interpretation of this term.

When two very young cows (each having only one calf) are fighting without any respite, who except a Mleccha boy will kill one and end the fighting. He will try to tempt one or both of them by offering young green grass, fodder etc., make it interested in some other object and stop the fighting,even if they are still angry with each other.

Similarly, when two Vedic texts appear to make opposite statements, they should be reconciled with each other by interpreting the one which is NiravakAsha (can only be interpreted in one manner) and then interpreting the other which is SAvakAsha (can be interpreted in more than one manner) according to the first text, to remove the conflict in meanings.

Sri Vadiraja has used the following words with double meanings in the above shlokas - Go - cows and vedas, AparAngmukheem - irreconciliable differences, ArthaparAm - divert the cow with another object of desire, interpret the shruthi text to remove the conflict in meanings.

The underlying principle is just as cows should not be killed to remove conflict among them, Shruthi texts can not be discarded by calling some of them as AthathvAvedaka - not conveying absolute truth and accepting as valid only some of them, which may superficially appear to support a particular doctrine - as Advaitha does.

The Vedas being ApaurushEya and free of all defects can not be treated in this manner - as there will always be the doubt as to which set of texts should be treated as valid (why not he other set? etc) and the very reasonable question that if some part of the infallible Vedas is saying untruths, why not all of them?.

Even if it is assumed that some part of the Vedas do tell the absolute truth, it will be impossible to decide which part, unless we have some other pramana to judge their validity. In the case of nonsensory objects like Dharma, God etc. it is apparent that there is no other such pramana, unless one chooses to accept somebody's statements - as in all Paurusheya texts.

The only source which is known to be Apaurusheya and infallible is thus rendered totally useless, if the absolute validity of ALL Apaurusheya texts is not fully accepted without any reservations.

It is very important to understand that Acharya Madhva alone has stressed the inescapable necessity of accepting ALL the Vedas as the fountainhead of valid Thathvas and has been extremely rigorous in reconciling all of them to show that his Thathvavada is the essence of the Vedic religion, unlike other schools which while accepting Apaurusheyathva of the Vedas, also postulate the unreality or invalidity of some of them.

The question of discarding or relegating to a secondary level any statement like "Aham BrahmAsmi" on the plea that it appears to go against our doctrine JUST DOES NOT ARISE, in Madhva philosophy.

The simplistic translation of the expression - "Aham Brahmasmi" is that I am Brahma. The Advaitha interpretation of this passage is well illustrated by the Siddhantha of Sri Shankara explained in his composition - "PraudAnubhUthi. To keep it short only a very short extract is reproduced here :

The Dvaitha (duality) which is observed in the world (such as me, you, he etc) is due to the unreal Avidya. I (represented by Aham) , the immanent spirit which is unique and one only, is complete and fulfilled (needing nothing else). I am free from Maya, eternal, self efflugent and there is nothing else which exists apart from me.

I require no Shravana (listening to the scriptures), Manana (assimilation of all the valid Thathvas correctly with the help of Yukthis). I have no doubts and I have infinite knowledge as I am of the nature of Sath, Chith and Ananda. Salutations to myself.

Thus in the plane of absolute reality, the Chethana which appears in the form of various living things with differences of mind, perception, knowledge, happiness or misery etc is one. There is none other. This Chethana is the Shuddha Brahma of Advaitha. This is indicated by the word Brahma in Vedantha - such as Brahma Suthras, Upanishach as Aham BrahmAsmi etc.

The expression Aham in this case must therefore refer to the realisation of the Advaitha consciousness - Aham (Soul) is totally identical with Brahman. Sri Sankara has even offered his salutations to "himself' in the sense, that after this realisation, the person saluting and saluted are the same.

Advaitha does make provision for different degrees of reality such as PrAthibhAsica, VyAvahArika, and PAramAarthika. The last one is the absolute reality, which is not subject to BAdha or sublation at any time.

Advaitha also accepts that Brahman, Shuddha Chethana is the only entity which exists in absolute reality. The Jivas, their bondage and happiness, the material world and even the Avidya which causes these to be manifested from beginningless time, till Brahma realisation are all having their existence only in the VyAvahArika level.

An example of such existence is the actions and entities inhabiting the dream world, all of which vanish into absolute nothingness when the sleeper awakes. The sleeper also knows later that though he was part of it, they never existed.

Even the Vedas, Vedanta and the tools of self-realisation like the Mind, Anthahkarana etc., teacher and the taught (which may "cause the sleeper to awake") themselves are also VyAvahArika only and after such realisation the Shuddha Brahman does not even cognisethem as real or even as an unreal past experience.

This doctrine therefore, is postulated as the acceptance of only one entity as PAramArthika reality and all others as nonexistent in that plane. The real problems start when writing equations of entities which exist in only one plane of reality with others which exist in theothers.

The other famous Expression "Thatthvamasi" is also interpreted by Advaitha similarly with Thath being interpreted as the Brahman and Thvam, in this case, Shwethakethu, who was being addressed, being the Jiva who is identical to the former after taking the Lakshanika or indicated secondary meaning for the two words has to be applied to make the equation valid.

This is because when one makes a statement that a = b, a and b will have to be of the same kind - say 2 horses, cows etc. The Identity statement can be made in the form that Thath = Brahma which is identical with Thvam = Aham, only when both refer to the underlying reality of the Chethana.

Advaitha siddhantha is undoubtedly attractive as it seems to promise an exalted status to all creatures - that of identity with the Brahman, who is of the essence of Truth, and Bliss. Valiant attempts are made to answer valid objections from other schools supporting Duality - starting from SAmkhyas and ending with MAdhva philosophy.

It is also noteworhy that except Advaitha, no other religion in the world preaches total identity of the soul subject to births and deaths and misery etc. with the changeless and immanent Spirit or Brahman.

It is also necessary to examine how Advaitha explains the different elements of the sentence - Aham Brahmasmi. The first word Aham represents the Jiva which according to Advaitha is Shuddha Chethana qualified by the inert (Jada) thathva Anthakarana, which is also unreal in the absolute sense and is the product of unreal Avidya.

It is necessary to leave out the qualifying thathva and consider only the underlying chethana, when interpreting the text as preaching identity. When considering the second element in the equation - Brahma, we come up against the same problem in a different way. The word means that He is full of all auspicious qualities.

The Shuddha Chethana of Advaitha is defined as Nirdharmaka (with no attributes what so ever), Akhanda (indivisible into parts) etc. The word Brahma according to Advaitha in this expression can only mean the underlying substratum, Shuddha Chethana.

The expression therefore really means that the Shuddha Chethana (which is underlying the Jiva) and the Shuddha indicated as a secondary or Lakshnika meaning by the word Brahma are identical. In other words, instead of the Jiva as he is (you, I and him etc) being identical with Brahma, he is stripped of the unreal Avidya, (which strips him of the You-ness, I-nessand He-ness) which makes him the same as Shuddha Chethana, when declaring identity with the latter.

Being Nirdharmaka, Shuddha can not have any positive qualifying attributes such as Jnana, Bliss etc. But he is still called Sath Chith Ananda, as these qualities are part of his Swaroopa or essence and they can not be compared with the conventional qualities indicated by these words. If an element like a quality is stated to be the property of the Shuddha, he is no longer Nirdharmaka.

Advaitha goes to great lengths in trying to explain the significance of numerous Shruthi texts defining Brahman as possessed of such auspicious qualities - finally ending up with the proposition that as He is attributeless, He is also indefinable and the inability to explain thesefor the understanding of the human intellect is not a disadvantage, but is actually an indication of the greatness of the Advaitha doctrine.

The Advaitha explanations have been discussed as at great length by MAdhva teachers. It is pointed out that such expression of identity can be used in any of the following : -

i. When describing similarity - an example is calling some one as a lion - when what is obviously meant is congruence of certain qualities.

Shri Vyasaraja points out in NyayAmrutha, that in such interpretations it is not necessary to leave out the primary meaning (mukhyartha) of both the expressions Aham and Brahma and take only Lakshanika (indicated or secondary meanings) as done by Advaitha.

Atleast one of the words will always be taken with its primary meaning. According to Dvaitha Aham indicates the Jiva as its MukhyArtha, as it represents not the Anthahkarana alone (which is real), but the SAkshi, which is the Swaroopa (cognitive) faculty of the soul.

Brahma is defined by the actual meaning of the word indicating the Supreme being, the limitless ocean of infinite auspicious qualities. The expression Asmi is not indicative of absolute identity, but of limited "identity" based on the many aspects of similarity and total dependence of the former on the latter.

Earlier an introduction to this important text from BrihadAranyaka Upanishath was given to make the following points :

I. Vedas being Apaurusheya and self-validated, with no other means available for further validation, it would be self-defeating for any school of Vedic religion to argue that they will consider only some parts of the Upanishaths as ThathvAvEdaka (conveying the absolute truth), while rejecting the rest on various grounds. The entire mass of the Vedic literature must either be accepted as valid or totally given up. The arguments of Advaitha which advocate a contrary view will be discussedseperately.

II. Luckily for us, thanks to the method of preservation and perpetuation of the Vedas, while there are minor differences between different ShAkhAs in a few texts which APPEAR to be the same passage, there is no dispute between rival Veda based religious schools as to what is the actual statement or even the pronunciation etc of any Vedic text.

Interpretation thus becomes crucial, and various factors which govern it have to be studied to make a success of it. Irrespective of apparent meanings assigned to these texts favouring one or the other school, no one can ever even think of abandoning "inconvenient" texts unexplained. The basic proposition that Vedas have YEka VAkyathA - coherent and consistent doctrines is also accepted by all Vedic schools.

Thus the intellectual efforts to see the total picture and explain all the apparent contradictions and disparities is the common feature of all AchAryas claiming to interpret the Vedas. Sri VEdavyAsa has set the example by His Brahma Suthras, to do exactly this. Writing a commentary on Brahma Suthras to accord with the directions briefly indicated by their author has always been considered as the starting point of all VEdic schools.

III. The problem of validity of intrepretation has to be judged by adherence to the norms of interpretation, self consistency and external consistency with other texts so interpreted. Most of the polemical literature is based on this approach. Occasionally, Grammatical or literary errors are also shown, but the standards being set are so high and in view of the flexibility of Sanskrit language and differences in Vedic grammar on occasion, these do not assume significance.

The interpretation has to perforce follow the path shown by Sri Vedavyasa - the greatest minds of Vedic schools have never questioned His authority or tried to formulate some other set of rules - or Suthras. Sri Madhwa has not only offered unquestioned allegiance to Sri Vedavyasa, who is a manifestation of Vishnu Himself, but is also his own Guru, at whose lotus feet he learnt all the shasthras in Badarikashrama, not accessible to human vision.

IV. The science of Nyaya has thus become crucial - as the material being interpreted is fixed and accepted on all sides, and the general rules of intrepretation being known and accepted with some significant differences. The titles of our most famous compositions - "NyAya SudhA", NyAyAmrutha" etc indicate the significance of this. But, NyAya by itself can not answer all questions - ultimately it has to be verified and the Anubhava (personal cognition or experience) of some one who can be trusted to tell the truth or by oneself as the ultimate basis for acceptance.

In Athindriya entities, how ever, where such personal cognition is not possible except for those blessed with Yogic Prathyaksha etc., the Apaurusheya texts, which are also the Yogi Prathyaksha of saints of the past are considered as PramAna. Even the validity of the statement that the Vedas are Apaurusheya is based on the statement of such saints, who are "Seers' of the specific passages. No body has ever claimed to have "composed" the Vedas as in the case of other Paurusheya compostions like MahAbhAratha etc.

V. The interpretations of the statement "Aham BrahmAsmi" according to Advaitha and Dvaitha schools had been briefly given earlier to give a general appreciation of the wide gulf which seperates the two. The Dvaitha savants have always taken Advaitha interpretations as possible PUrva Paksha (erroneous interpretations which will be examined in detail and demolished them on proper grounds of inconsistency, invalid method of proof etc.) and then given their own "correct" interpretation or SiddhAntha.

Thus it is always left to the student to convince himself of the correctness of the final position. The depth of analysis, the total fidelity of reproducing the opponent's position, systematic and all embracing sprit of enquiry which usually anticipates the intelligent student's possible doubts and answers them and other unmistakeable features of a sincere, open but critical intellect of a very high caliber can not but carry conviction to any dispassionate student.

Sri Surendranath Dasgupta, who has written his monumental work "A HISTORY OF INDIAN PHILOSOPHY" has said as follows :

"In my opinion JayaTirtha and VyasaTirtha present the highest dialectical skill in Indian thought. There is a general belief amongst many that monism of Sankara presents the final phase of Indian thought. The realistic and dualistic thought of the samkhya and the Yoga had undergone a compromise with monism both in the PurAnAs and in the hands of the later writers.

But the readers of the present volume (vol 4) who will be introduced to the philosophy of JayaTirtha and particularly VyasaTirtha will realise the strength and uncompromising impressiveness of the Dualistic position.

THE LOGICAL SKILL AND DEPTH OF ACUTE DIALECTICAL THINKING SHOWN BY VYASA TIRTHA STANDS ALMOST UNRIVALLED IN THE WHOLE FIELD OF INDIAN THOUGHT".

Narasimha:-

If we look at the statement at the outset its understood as "I am Brahman". Usually the meaning for "aham" according to the present day dictionary is "I". But the etimological meaning or the meaning of Aham according to the vedic days was "something without which u cant exist " . Similarly "Ham" means "something without which u exist" .We may leave ur friends, food , relatives, samsara etc but u can never leave urself and thats " Myself " . We can only be Aham for ourself thats it..similarly i can be Aham for myself..neither can i be Aham for anyone nor anyone can be Aham for me..But Brahman or the supreme godhead is the only independent reality whos Aham for everyone and hence Aham and Asmi are nothing but his secret name or his gupyha nama..he's understood himself that i am Aham for eveyone..Acharya Madhwa was the first to come up with this interpretation that made many scholars to think about..If the bimba roopi paramatma was not present in us then we wouldn't have even been able to use the term "I"..Jivas do not have swatantra kartrutva at any point of time as our purnathe(fullness) is only "Sapeksha"..every jiva has got its own capacity..for eg when u fill a 1 litre & a 2 litre bottle u still see that both the bottles are full but they are full according to their own capacities..akhanda purnathe(infinite) is only that of Sriman Narayana..as i said earlier for a jiva to get liberated its important that he realizes its own capacity..the supreme godhead being omnipresent he's poorna even when he's in u, he's poorna even when he's out of u and where ever he is his purnathe is anadi & thats the reason his purnathe is "Nirapeksha". So when u worship u need to worship to realize the bimba roopi paramatma in u & by being in u he has given to the eligibility to use the term "I"..So Aham and Asmi are his own secret names.

Brahmavit Brahmaiva Bhavathi

The term "Brahmavit Brahmaiva Bhavati" has been completely misinterpreted among various schools of thought. If anyone reads this term one can interpret it as one who knows Brahman or one who gets complete awareness of Brahman becomes Brahman himself. But this interpretation is absolutely meaningless because its an universal truth that if u get complete awareness of any entity u cannot become that entity itself. For eg there are 2 persons person "A" and person "B". If person "A" gets to know person "B" completely then "A" cannot beome "B" and vice versa "B" cannot become "A". If a poor man gains money he becomes rich but he dosent end being money itself. Hence the term "gaining" is completely different to the term "becoming". So according to the samskritha of the vedic days the term Bhavati had 2 meanings 1. to be 2. to get. Bhavati comes from "Bhu" dhathu which also had another meaning "prapnothi" which means "to get". I can quote an verse from Vedas as an eg for the same " Tam Yatha Yatha Upasathe Tadeva Bhavati" it means one who does niranthara upasane of Brahman will merge with him by his blessings and will have an opportunity to do his niranthara seva during liberation. Hence we have to understand the etimological meaning of the statement "Brahmavit Brahmaiva Bhavati" which is "to get" and not "to be". Every jiva has got its own swabhava and its own capacity. Every Jiva based on his sadhane and his limits gets to know Brahman. Liberation is to realise who ur completely but its not to become someone else or to be Brahman. If liberation is to realise ur Brahman or become like Brahman then the jiva is losing its own astitva and scriptures will never proclaim that. When ur vyaktitva or character attains poorna vikasa that'll be a moksha for a individual. But how can one attain the poorna vikasa of his own vyaktitva - its by knowing Brahman - by surrendering to him through immense bhakthi and gaining the right knowledge abt him through the scriptures because the entire scriptures talk only abt him.

Author :-

After giving the background of the text, general differences in interpretation and method of analysis, I will venture to give a Layman's picture, shorn of high scholarship and grammar, of the logical structure of the correct interpretation of this statement, which Advaitha has considered as the corner stone of its philosophy.

In the beginning (before creation), Brahma alone existed. He knew Himself as Brahma, who alone exists. Therefore, he became every thing else (sarvam) in the world {the entire process of creation is implied here). Who ever knew Brahman in this manner amongst the Devas, Rishis and Manushyas (men) they became that. Sri Vamadeva Rishi also cognised Him in this manner that he became Manu, Surya etc. Therefore, who ever cognises "Aham BrahmAsmi" will become everything (sarvam). This can not be prevented even by gods or by any body else.

The key to the correct interpretation of the full text is whether the statement - "Aham BrahmAsmi" is a simple grammatical sentence - in which Aham is a first person pronoun, Brahma is the entity which is the main subject of the Upanishath (what ever it may be interpreted as) and Asmi - is a verb, indicating the status of Aham. The Upanishath has itself offered the following clues to indicate its purpose :

I. Before creation only Brahman existed, to the exclusion of everything else.

II. It knew itself existing as Brahman.The use of the word AtmAnam (its own self) appears to be redundant, if the purpose was only to convey the simple meaning - that it knew itself to be Brahma - "Thad veda aham brahmAsmi ithi". Further, the entire sentence appears to be unnecessary, as the first sentence makes it clear that only Brahman existed in the beginning - unless the Upanishath wanted to convey that earlier it was ignorant of who it was and became aware later on.

This is not obviously the purpose, as Brahman knew itself as Brahman all the time as a cognising entity, unless there was something else which could obscure it. Such an entity apart from Brahman did not exist. This statement also disallows one of the main doctrines of Advaitha that Brahman can not be the object of self-knowldege.

III.The entire passage makes another obvious point that the knowledge represented by the sentence - "Aham BrahmAsmi" has the effect on the knower, who ever he may be, a god, Rishi or man, that he becomes "sarva" infallibly and even the gods can not stop it. A case study of Sri Vamadeva who realised this becoming Manu, Surya etc is also quoted as an illustration.

In order to suit an Advaita connotation, Sri Shankara interprets the first sentence "Brahma vA idam agra AsIth" with a number of ideas added not easily related to the main burden of the sentence. Thus, he says - I quote this part from Sri B N K Sharma's book -

" The self now experiencing itself as embodied, was in fact the unconditioned Brahma itself, even before realising itself to be so (agre). Therefore, it is all that exists in reality. How ever through superimposition, it has come to regard itself as NOT BRAHMAN (a-brahma) NOT ALL (a-sarvam) and to suppose itself to be a doer, enjoyer and a transmigrating self. When its eyes are opened by a compassionate teacher of Vedantha, that Brahman comes to discover itself as the pure objectless consciousness, free from superimposed individual awareness.

Thus Brahman's coming to know itself as Brahman consists merely in the removal of the superimposition caused by ignorance and is not at all an act of knowing itself as a real object of its own consciousness. en ignorance vanishes, its effect is also wiped out. With their disappearance, pure consciousness emerges as all that there is (sarvam abhavath)"

Sri Shankara himself has interpreted "agre" earlier as "before the creation of the world". The multiple and unwarranted assumptions of his theory of Adhyasa entirely unrelated to creation can not be supported by just one word AGRE in the Upanishath when the same word in a similar context has been used a few lines earlier to denote "before creation". It is also note worthy that even if we accept his explanation for arguments sake - the following inconsistencies still remain.

I. ThadAthmAnam eva aveth - Brahman knew itself as it was. As per Advaitha, Shuddha can not have attributes like knowing itself (as an object) etc. There can not also be the taint of "Aham", which is the product of Avidya. If the sentence has to be interpreted as proposed, Shuddha Brahma could not have existed before creation, but only a conditioned Brahma.

But Shuddha is defined as Nithya-shuddha-buddha-muktha- svarUpa. As Brahman could not have existed in both forms simultaneously before creation - "It alone existed" as per Upanishath, it has to be the Shuddha only. Such a form could never qualify for the statement "it knew itself".

II. The state of ignorance (affliction of Avidya) which is implied with this intrepretation of agre - cannot apply to Shuddha Brahma, which is free from this at all times. If it applies to the conditioned Brahma only, one has to explain how such a Brahma came to existence first before creation. If it is argued that Agre does not mean the state before creation at all, but only the state of the Brahma before "knowing itself", the use of the word earlier by the Upanishath in the earlier sense (as interpreted by Sri Sankara himself) and in this context are so grossly different, that it is difficult to justify it.

III. Further, the statement "Sarvam abhavath" is being interpreted by Sri Shankara, in a manner opposite to the concept of creation which is being discussed by the Upanishath. Thus, Before the state of knowing "Aham Brahmasmi", we can have a qualified Brahma, which concepts like Aham (myself), Brahma (full of attributes), Asmi (cognition of unique existence) etc.

After this knowledge, what emerges is Shuddha Brahma, which is free of all names, forms, attributes and qualities. This is actually creation-in-reverse. The word Sarvam would hardly be appropriate in the circumstances. What is being concluded is "Sarvam Brahma abhavath". But Sarvam did not exist earlier as per the Upanishath itself.

IV. The example of Sri Vamadeva, who "became" Manu, Surya etc after he realised that "Aham Brahmasmi" is also illustrating the meaning of Sarva. It is obvious that what is meant here is the act of one becoming many by some entity, implying creation rather than one which is already many becoming one, as a result of this knowledge.

V. The expression "sa idam sarvam bhavathi" has to be interpreted as per Sri Shankara that any one knowing this will become all this (world), which is sublated and unreal. The entity Sa, who is the knower thus ceases to exist!.

It is therefore clear, that trying to interpret the extremely abstract thoughts of the statements in the Upanishath in the manner attempted by Advaitha leads us to a quagmire of logical contradictions and inconsistencies of known Advaitha formulations. The popular concept that the sentence preaches Identity of the soul with Brahman is not fitting in either with the context of creation of the world or the attainment of special objectives by Sri VAmadeva etc by understanding this truth.

Sri Madhva in his Bhashya of the Upanishath points out the keys to the correct understanding of the text -

A. The word Sarva indicates completeness or Poornathva. only with this definition could all the statements of attainment of Sarvathva by any god, rishi or man who understands the correct meaning of "Aham Brahmasmi" could be explained. All of them will attain Poornathva or full and complete knowledge, bliss etc according to their innate capacity.

B. The word Aham analysed according to the root words and grammar means one with the quality of Aheyathva - Undiscardable by any other being. Brahman who is immanent in all creatures and resides in the innermost core and controls absolutely the very existence of the being is obviously totally UNDISCARDABLE. It can not be a first person pronoun .

Further while Brahman with qualified limitations (Visheshya) could become Manu, Surya etc. even according to Advaitha, Sri Vamadeva can not do so as Vamadeva. It is clear that when Sri Vamadeva here, he was referring to his antharyAmi Brahman and not himself.

C. As the word Aham is being interpreted to establish the most relevant quality of Brahman to all others - Aheyathva, and the word Brahma itself means one who is full of auspicious attributes, the word Asmi is also interpreted from the point of view of Anatharyami, whose existence always is not subject any dimunition, negation or limitation - such as dependence or conrol by some one else, periodical transformation of form or attributes etc.

With this key, it becomes very simple and elegant to understand the meaning of the Upanishath : -

Before creation of the world, Brahma alone existed. He was aware of his own unique qualities of AhEyathva (for all other entities), Gunapoornathva (being full of auspicious attributes) and Asmi ( untrammelled and independent existence). Therefore, He was always Poorna (sarva) - complete and lacking in nothing. Which ever among the gods understood Him thus, they also achieved poornathva (according to their own innate nature - swaroopa). Similarly the rishis did.

So did the men. Sri VAmadeva realised these qualities of Brahman with the help of the SUktha "Aham manurabhavam sUryashcha". This is not only so in the past, but even now, who ever realises Brahman's unique qualities of AhEyathva, Gunapoornathva and Eternal inedependent existence will also attain their fullness of knowledge and bliss etc. No body, even the gods, can or will stop this attainment of the result obtained by this Jnana as He (Brahman) is the Athman (antharyami) of all including the gods.

In the earlier part, an attempt was made to explain the importance of this text amongst others to determine the philosophical truths about the relationships between the supreme being and the souls.The interpretations as made by Advaitha and Dvaitha were briefly explained along with the methods used. Some criticisms were also offered against the Advaitha interpretation of Sri Shankara, keeping in view the context of the BrihadAranyaka Upanishath, where the text occurs, the internal and external consistency problems which arise with it.

The superficial interpretation preaching the identity of all souls with the supreme being, as commonly understood by those who have not gone into the subject in depth was shown to be not only not according to the Dvaitha tenets, but even Advaitha philosophy also.

A masterly analysis of the subject has been made by Sri Vyasatirtha in NyAyAmrutha, where the interpretations have been analysed in searching detail and great depth. I propose to give a brief and admittedly unscholarly account of this analysis, mainly with a view to familiarise the readers with the very strong case against the claim that this text supports Identity of the soul with the supreme being. Any shortcomings in this presentation including errors of understanding, omission or commission of facts or arguments, incorrect representation of the contending schools etc are entirely mine and I would be humbly grateful if they are pointed out.

Those with the necessary intellectual and other equipments should see and study the originals themselves and possibly also go into Advaithasiddhi and Tharangini texts which have examined each issue at great length and in great depth. I would consider that my own puny efforts would have been well worthwhile if a dispassionate reader comes to the conclusion That this text can not be simply called as an "Advaitha" text, and on the other hand requires very careful study to determine its true import.

In NyAyAmrutha, Sri VyAsatIrtha has dealt with his issue in his Dvithiya Pariccheda. After examining the Advaitha tenets of Identity of the soul with the Supreme being and all the arguments and bases offered by Advaitha for trying to establish these, Sri Vyasatirtha takes up in two specific sections the two famous MahAvAkyas relied upon by Advaitha to "prove" the concordance of their tenets with the Shruthi.

As Identity is so obviously opposed by Prathyaksha (direct cognition) and can not beproved only by Anumana alone (as counter Anumanas galore can be offered to prove the opposite), Advaitha must rest their case on the point that the infallible Shruthi states this beyond all possible doubts.

The two popularly known texts are "Thathvamasi" and "Aham BrahmAsmi". The formeris discussed first in very great detail and a large number of points made in that context which are equally applicable to the second. This seems to be very appropriate as Thathvamasi is not just a bald statement, but has been profusely illustrated with examples in the Upanishath itself.

It is well known that subject to limitations of similarities pertinent to the points under consideration, the use of illustrations MUST show very clearly the intentions and meanings of the texts. It is shown that even according to Advaitha, it is not argued that Shwethakethu (Thvam) is identical to the Supreme being (Thath). In the present context however, I will not go into this part in detail except to refer to the similar arguments in passing, but will confine myself to the other so called MahAvAkya - Aham BrahmAsmi.

The following defects are pointed out :

1. The Advaitha interpretation needs the assumption that both key factors in the similarity equation - Thath and Thvam or Aham and Brahma must necessarily be endowed with indirect (lakshana) meanings and not the main and direct meanings (Mukhyartha). This is considered improper when it is possible to interpret the text with at least one direct meaning, with the other used indirectly.

Earlier I had already indicated that for Dvaitha interpretation based on total dependence, control, similarity etc by the supreme being it is possible to use identity as an example - He is a lion etc. The word Aham being used to denote Vishnu, who is SarvAntharyAmi is supported by smrithi text, which means that Vishnu is called by all names as he is the AntharyAmi in all -thus, Yesha (he), Thvam (you), Asau (I) etc are all capable of being given its direct meaning of denoting Vishnu as the inner controller of the Jivas and the second word Thath (or brahma) is given the Lakshanika meaning.

2. The expression Aham Manurabhavamshcha ... etc in the Upanishath can not refer to VAmadEva rishi, but to his AnathryAmi only. Even according to Advaitha, the Vishishta Brahma swaroopa (qualified Brahma associated with the Upadhi responsible for his being called) VAmadEva could not become Manu, Surya etc which are also other Vishishta Brahma Swaroopas. Use of Aham to represent ChinmAthra or Shuddha Brahma can not permit the use of Asmi.

3. Sri Vyasaraja quoes some shrutis to justify the use of Aham to represent Vishnu or Hari:

The interpretation of these shruti texts has to be made on the basis of AntharyAmi only- otherwise the texts will have grammatical errors in Vibhakti endings.

4. Sri Vyasaraja shows that interpretation of statements in ChAndOgya etc in the direct manner results in contradictions with the succeeding statements (Utthara vakya virodha) unless the Anatharyami vivaksha is taken. (I will not explain the meanings in each case, but rest content in just quoting the examples)

5. Sri Vyasaraja also points out that there is another way of interpreting the expression Aham Brahmasmi - by taking the meaning of the word Brahma as Jiva only. There is no need for the contorted meanings - Lakshana - and the simple direct or Mukhya meanings can be taken to all the words. He gives examples from Shruthi, Smruthi etc for this. In this case, the text means that the Jiva (Aham) becomes possessed of Brumhithathva - or Brahmathva , which means poorna according to his capacity - Svayogya poornathva, which is his swaroopa or essence.

Shruthi texts speaking of attaining Brahman - "ParAthparam purusham upaithi divyam" support this meaning rather than becoming one with Him. The previous sentence is "niranjanah paramam samyam upaithi" - which talks of equality rather than identity. A worldly example for this - "Sampoojya brahmanam bhakthya shudropi brahmano bhaveth" - the shudra does not become one with the Brahmana, but attains Brahmanathva (while remaining seperate).

6. Sri Vyasaraja also points out that there is another way of interpreting the expression Aham Brahmasmi - by taking the meaning of the word Brahma as Jiva only. There is no need for the contorted meanings - Lakshana - and the simple direct or Mukhya meanings can be taken to all the words. He gives examples from Shruthi, Smruthi etc for this. In this case, the text means that the Jiva (Aham) becomes possessed of Brumhithathva - or Brahmathva , which means poorna according to his capacity - Svayogya poornathva, which is his swaroopa or essence.

Shruthi texts speaking of attaining Brahman - "ParAthparam purusham upaithi divyam" support this meaning rather than becoming one with Him. The previous sentence is"niranjanah paramam samyam upaithi" - which talks of equality rather than identity. A worldly example for this - "Sampoojya brahmanam bhakthya shudropi brahmano bhaveth" - the shudra does not become one with the Brahmana, but attains brahmanathva (while remaining seperate).

Shri Madhva has shown in Vishnuthathvavinirnaya that other texts generally assumed as supporting Advaitha should also be interpreted to be consistent with the main purport of the shruthies. The passages "Thadyoham .... Soham", "Yosavadithye ..... evahamasmi" etc are to be interpreted as to refer to the Antharyami (inner controller). The words - the sanskrit "A", "Aham" in the passages "Sa yaschayam ...... ekah", A ithi ..... aham" etc refer to God (Brahma).

The Narayana shruthi passage "Aham nama ....Bahuh" is quoted in this context. Shri Hari is called AHAM as He is Aheya,(not suffering destruction at any time). Similarly the words Thvam, Sah etc also refer to God. All words in all tenses, numbers (Singular, Plural etc) referring to I, You, We, Our, Your , He, Their etc all refer to Hari in the main as He is the only independent inner controller of all, who is different from every body and every thing else, as understood and referred to by the Learned (VidvadrUdhi).

The same words refer to souls, and other things etc only due to the association of Hari with them, as secondary and associated meanings, used normally by people not learned in the Shashthras. That is why Lord Vishnu who dwells in all things, animate and inanimate, and is different from all others is referred to by the words denoting all - sarva. The Githa passage "Sarvabhutheshu ..... Satthvikam" is also quoted to support the Shruthi text interpretation.

Shri Madhva has considered and rejected the argument that the Veda texts which speak of Difference are Athathvavedaka. He states that these shruthies are not telling a paramarthika untruth and quotes various texts to prove his point. "Sathyamenamanu ...... Maghonah" , Sathyah ........Viprarajye" , "Sathya Aathma ...... Maivaruvanyah" , "Aathma hi ....... alpakah" etc.

The simple meaning of these texts is as follows: Both the world and it's creator are true and is worshipped as such by gods headed by Indra. In sacrifices we praise the true greatness and auspicious qualities of the Lord and we obtain the boon of happiness. Both the souls and God are true and so is the difference between them.

The words stating that the difference between Souls and God is true are repeated thrice to make it absolutely certain and for ruling out all contrary theories. Such worship can only be made by those who are free of all ignorance and defective thinking.

The difference between the souls and the God is further stressed by pointing out that Aathma, the inner controller of the souls (God) is completely independent, all knowing, all powerful, full of bliss and is greater than all, while the souls controlled by God have intrinsically little knowledge, capacity, suffer from worldly miseries .

Thus, there can not be the remotest possibility of God and the souls being one, due the exact opposite nature of their characteristics. Thus, according to theseShruthi texts also Bheda (difference) is true and the statement that these are Athathvavedaka can not be sustained.

Shri Madhva dismisses the argument that these texts though true are only so from the point of view of the external world and in the ultimate analysis of the absolute truth, they are not true. (Vyavaharika sathya). He gives quotes from the shruthies themselves which can not but be interpreted to support the doctrine of Difference, thus meeting Advaitha on its strongest base, if not in the fields of logic and direct sensory perception.

He also quotes the Githa shloka "Idam jnanamapashrithya .... vyathayanthi cha" and the Brahma suthras "Aum Jagadvyapara Varjyam" , "Prakaranadasannihithathvaccha" and others of the kind not specifically quoted to illustrate that Bheda or Difference is eternal , intrinsic in nature and hence indestructible

The meanings of these passages : The passage "Yo veda ... " clearly says that those who know God resident in the inner space of their hearts, will enjoy full bliss along with Brahma (God), clearly showing no unity of entities even after Brahma Jnana. After reaching God, full of bliss (Anandamaya), liberated soul moves as desired in all the worlds, and obtains all his desires.

The next passage describes the liberated Brahmas (Chathurmukha, the most exalted souls in creation) - one who is full of bliss singing Riks with great fervour, another, who sings Sama gayana in sacrifices, another, who teaches Paurusheya texts to other liberated souls, and one more who contemplates the supreme creator in isolation.

This passage speaks of several souls in the liberated state who are engaged in various activities of their volition and in the fullness of their bliss, and their continued Difference from God even after Liberation. The next passage describes liberated souls who have reached God (His proximity), enjoy bliss of various kinds with friends, vehicles and consorts.

Sri Krishnaarpanamastu.

Discussions:Nag :-

There is nothing to interpret in this line Aham Brahmasmi.

Aham here does not represent deha. Clearly Vedas and Vedanta talks about Deha, mana and buddhi. I is defined as something is beyond all this, something that is no subjected to the rules of creation. This is accepted by all the 3 acharyas. So I is a thought that is arising from manas. When you drop I all that is left is consciousness. This consciousness is the real identity and is know as I or Brahman or you or whatever.

Adi :-

Regarding the debate, I feel that 'Aham BrahmAsmi' cannot be interpreted in isolation. One has to take into account the background and context in which it was said. You have to take into account the entire passage where Aham BrahmAsmi occurs and how Shankaracharya interprets the complete passage (I have already quoted the superficial meaning of the passage according to Advaita).

I could see that there are lot of inconsistencies in their interpretations regarding the passage which is already pointed out. You can probably go thro them and you can contest the claim if you find them to be wrong.

Nag :-

If you think that way so be it... Good Luck

Adi :-

I suppose that you might have read the Advaiti version of 'Aham BrahmAsmi' and the whole passage. Do you think that the interpretation of Aham BrahmAsmi according to Advaita given here is a flawed interpretation of Advaita?? If yes then why do you think that the interpretation is a flawed one? what is the correct advaitic interpretation of the whole passage?Please do let us know.

If you think that the Advaitic interpretation of the passage given here is the correct Advaiti interpretation then please explain as to what is wrong with the logic used to disprove the interpretation and why it cant be used. Looking forward for answers from you.

Rk :-

There is nothing to interpret in this line Aham Brahmasmi.

really!

Aham here does not represent deha. Clearly Vedas and Vedanta talks about Deha, mana and buddhi.

You have already given an interpretation by saying it is NOT these things.

I is defined as something is beyond all this, something that is no subjected to the rules of creation.

Why is this NOT an interpretation of what Aham stands for?

This is accepted by all the 3 acharyas.

So all 3 Acharyas have given their interpretations. Why would Acharyas need to explain that which is so clear according to you.

So I is a thought that is arising from manas. When you drop I all that is left is consciousness. This consciousness is the real identity and is know as I or Brahman or you or whatever.

So according to you 'I' stands for consciousness. You have to explain so much just to say what is so obvious to you.

Why is this NOT an interpretation?

You say

'When you drop I all that is left is consciousness.'

Then say afterwards

'This consciousness is the real identity'

real identity for whom or what?

Can you define what is consciousness first? If you cannot even define what is consciousness in the first place, then you have NOT said anything here about whom or what 'Aham' refers to.

What you have said is like the following story.

B asked A another where A lives.

A answered he lives near C.

B asked A where C lives.

A answered C lives near A.

No useful information whatsoever.

Nag :-

Very nice play of words.... indeed to complicate things and take it to a mess..

In Samskrutah, Aham is referred to I period there is nothing to interpret here.

I asked a question how do you say I am Nagaraj... you answer eitherAham Nagarajah or Aham Nagaraj Asmi.

period. Notice if you use asmi it is a different word and not merged with Nagaraj.

So when you say Aham Brahmaasmi... it only means I am Brahma himself there is no other meaning to it as per the language of Samskrutah. If you bring a new translation you are interpreting it. When you start interpreting you go away from what is actually written.

All my other explanation were on what is "I", nothing else.

Adi :-

You are just interpreting 'Aham BrahmAsmi' in isolation without taking the whole context which is NOT correct. Moreover this so called 'MahAvAkya' is a fictitious term by Advaita commentators which has no sanctity in shastras. Even Sri Shankaracharya never used the term mahAvAkya in his works (source: Mahavakyas and Mahatatparya of Advaita by Dr BNK Sharma) and it is only the later addition of Advaita scholars.

'Aham BrahmAsmi' which in literal sense means 'I am Brahma' can be applied only to Supreme Brahma and not to individual jivas.

Rk :-

Very nice play of words.... indeed to complicate things and take it to a mess..

I think the same about your play of words.

In Samskrutah, Aham is referred to I period there is nothing to interpret here.

Says you. I do not agree to your interpretation.

Aham has a root meaning of "one who cannot be avoided as He is always inside you"

aham = aheyam = unfit for rejection, impossible to avoid;

Our identity comes from Paramatma within and that is why we refer to ourselves as 'I am so and so'.

'I' or 'Aham' in Sanskrit primarily refers to Paramatma within.

I asked a question how do you say I am Nagaraj... you answer eitherAham Nagarajah or Aham Nagaraj Asmi.

Read above.

period. Notice if you use asmi it is a different word and not merged with Nagaraj.

Read above again.

So when you say Aham Brahmaasmi... it only means I am Brahma himself there is no other meaning to it as per the language of Samskrutah. If you bring a new translation you are interpreting it. When you start interpreting you go away from what is actually written.

Again read the primary meaning of Aham.

All my other explanation were on what is "I", nothing else.

Your explanations are wrong.

Nag :-

Aham is not I ?????

I guess time for me to quit the discussion....

RK :-

You have very little ability to think outside your little box.

Nag :-

Thanks for your comments !! I sincerely appreciate it!

you are just interpreting 'Aham BrahmAsmi' in isolation without taking the whole context which is NOT correct

In general in our society, it is habit to interpret everything, no matter whatever simple topic it is.

Yes I am treating Aham brahmasmi in isolation and letting the syntax and semantics of the language answer all the questions here.

If we treat the entire texts of vedas and vedangas all at once we can never concluded on 1 fact! There are contradictions within these texts. Dont know why the vedas have these contradictions - purposefully done to confuse or some key vedic text were lost in time .. no one knows.

Only our intellect can guide us here.

Dilip :-

Btw...your "I am Nagaraja" in sanskrit is "ahaM nAgarAjaH". That "asmi" is generally not there in colloquial usage.You should think why there is an "asmi" in "ahaM brahmAsmi"."ahaM brahmaH" should have sufficed.

Nag :-

Aham Nagaraja Asmi or Aham Nagarajah are both the same. Whats your point?

Adi :-

It is only a myth that vedas have contradictions!!The Apaurusheya vedas which is considered flawless cannot be contradictory at all and is shown by Srimad Acharya as not to be contradictory by correctly interpreting the text in accordance to the strict rules of grammar, self consistency and consistency with other vedic texts..

There is absolutely no logic in holding that Vedas are contradictory in nature when they are already held to be flawless. The flaws if in case they exist are more to do with the limitation of human mind in interpreting the vedic texts more than anything else.

Nag :-

Only vedas are claimed to be unauthored , upanishads are compilation of Q&As as we all know.

Coming back to aham brahmasmi, we are not able to agree upon a common meaning so how can we claim all of vedas are coherent?

This subject of vedas being coherent or not is by itself a big topic to discuss out.

Further we claim there are 4 vedas but during the times of buddha only 3 vedas existed as revealed in the conversations between Buddha and his disciples. Another fact that emerges is that veda were written by Brahmanas and not "apurusheya" as believed in current times. Buddha while referring to vedas says Brahmana vedas and not just vedas.

History is a big Mystery! unless all the vedas referenced each other and made a bold declaration that it stands with one and only one coherent message, we can never be sure.

Read each purana, you will see the author like to depict the hero of the purana as supreme! can we conclude all puranas are coherent?

Kesavan :-

"Na anubhuva vidroha aagmaysa pramanam"All knowledge and validity of vedic passage has to pass thru litmus test of "Sakshi anubhava".even your interpretation of mahavakyaa need to pass such litmus test.Have u got anubhava that you are bhraman? if you ignore this sakshi as litmus test, then the rule has to be compromised in all stages (ie even when u get anubhava that u are brahman after reading Advita's interpretation, what is this proof that u r anubhava is right?)

If you say that u did not got anubhava cos of agyana (ignorance), who veilded you (ie bhrama as per ur interpretation) into Agyana? As per ur theory, Bharma (ie u) is veiled in Agyana (dont know how?) and is getting knowledge or seeking knowledge to know himself? what kind of bhraman is this?

In madhva philosphy- bhraman is paripoorna and nirdosha and dont have any iota of ignorance.

On veda apureshya

How do u say upanisad are only question answers form??Where is the question answer in taitreya or ishavaasya Upanishad?

Sorry iam reading your post one by one and answering it.

how do u know that upanishad are not intergral form of veda?

for eg- Talavkaara Bhramana of Sama veeda has talvakaara upanishad. u say then that bharamana part is not veda?

Pls note- entrie veda in all parts- bharamna, arranyaka and upanishads are considered one vedic parampara.

You need to read a lot on dviata -advita dialectics which has grown like a vast ocean of arguments and counter arguments. none of your arguments have new dimensions and has been answered by dviata champions many centuries ago.

u can still post your arguments...all i have to do is to look into what our great seers have written proving those arguments wrong and paste it here in simple english.

u are referring what Boudha has to say on veda? we know his teachings are not in line with vedic teachings.how we can accept his words / writtings as pramana?Simply because u are not willing to take what vedavaaysa has to say on veda, we also are not willing to take what Boudha has to say on veda. His deciples are free to have there opinion.

Regarding apurusheyatva of Veda:- It is well known in current times it is not regarded as apurusheya- who told u this?do u have pramana for it is Paurusheya?do u know what paurusheya (or apurusheya) means? Vedas are known for not having any author from a long tradition. Its is heard by rishis having specific qualities and attributes. These were revealed truths. Hence u see same mantra in veda having multiple rishis. i.e. more than one rishis has sakshatkara of same mantra. If any author is postulated even after such a long tradition then it would be highly superfluous.Every word (varna) is nitya. Every line in veda is nitya (ie the order which it is grasped and recited).if impersonal authorship of veda is not accepted, then, there will be no basis of right (Dharma) or wrong (Adharma). - think about it!

How would u prove Dharma (or say Adharma?). If you say there is no such thing as Dharama/ or say Adharma- then my question is how do u know that dharma/ or adharma does not exist. First u have to see Dharma (Pratyaksha), to confer its non existence. E.g. u have seen a black book, then u can say that such a black book is not in my house. If you haven't seem Dharma, how would u prove absence of it?

Hence Dharma/adharma has to have impersonal/ super sensual basis. For us it is Veda. cos we cannot accept paurusheya statements (of like Boudha, or Jina etc) for super sensual knowledge. As it would call for projecting a all knowing person AND further assuming that he would have told us what he knows without vitiating or deviating from the truth etc. This projection is assuming too many things which is not called for here.

Apureshayatva of vedas has been accepted by all Vedatin. Before Madhwa also, loads has been said on this topic favouring its non human authorship by mimasakas.Kumarila bhatta (hope ur histroy is strong) , much before madhwa had kept his life on line to prove veda pramanyatva (google his name if you want to know more!!)

Nag :-

Just a side note here.. Have u got anubhava that you are bhraman? Excellent comments and I am going to answer and add to what you have said here later . But lets take 1 step at a time..

Kesavan :-

you have not answered any of my question which I have raised on your earlier thread and escaped by apprecting my thread! I thought you will come with more arguments rather than sticking to same old question of getting the meaning of Aham bhramasmi (which has been answered by other members)?

let me ask u another question, in a belief that u will answer this time.

who is saying Aham bhramasmi?

Nag :-

I stand by the definition of the language in interpreting Aham Brahmaasmi, is there anything wrong?

Prove me wrong language wise, or have the guts to accept Aham Brahmaasmi literally means. What is wrong in me sticking to my point of view and arguing with you all? Why this bashing?

Kesavan :-

Still not got answers from you.But Iam continuing my analysis on what you said- ie how would you call in Sanskrit- Iam Nagrajah”. Then you went on to analyze and replicate the same line to infer the meaning Aham bhramasmi. (in same way as Aham Nagarajah asmi). You did that not once,but many times. Also, you went on to create a separate thread to gather meaning of Aham (not that I oppose this move, but brining the facts here for completing the background). Again you conferred that Bhrama and asmi are together hence the meaning is crystal to support the adviatic view. Though Aditya and Dilip gave you tatvavada take on the shruti passage Aham bhramasmi, you are not willing to take the understanding on the ground that you feel its just a interpretation, as per you (a) Aham Bhramasmi is same and simple as (b)Aham Nagrajah asmi.

Now, your this inference is wrong i.e. equating (a) to (b), as , Pls note there is a great difference between when you say (a) Aham bhramasmi and (b) Aham nagrajah asmi. To quote the major 2 difference,

(1) The attributes and qualities of Aham is same as Nagrajah in sentence (b). But the attributes of Aham is completely different from Bhrama in sentence (a).

(2) In sentence (b) Aham and Nagrajah is know by Pratyaksha. But in sentence (a) Bhrama is not known by Pratyaksha. To know Brahman, only Agama’s can help.

Hence your inference that Aham bhramasmi is same and simple as Aham Nagarajah asmi is not correct.

Further, as per you asmi means “myself”. Your argument that Bhrama and asmi are together to make it crystal advaitic view, is not correct on 2 grounds.

1. Asmi not necessarily means “myself”, but it means “exists” or “present” in normal usage.

2. The Sandhi or Vicheda of a line neither changes the meaning of the word nor gives more prominence to the exiting meaning. I can hardly imagine that in normal Sanskrit language, Sandhi and Vicheda changes or gives prominence to the meaning.

Nag :-

Fundamental mistake by saying

Asmi not necessarily means “myself”, but it means “exists” or “present” in normal usage

I dont know about your teacher, my teacher was my mom and I still remember my lessons.

In Samskrutah,

Asmi means I existAsti means it or he/she exists

No wonder why you are differing from the actual meaning

Kesavan :-

Dear Nag, not sure what is your point? I said the same thing in my previous thread!!

All Iam saying is Asmi is not "myself" necessarily. Agreed?

Also, before I put some more points, I would appreciate if you could response to my previous questions.

Appreciate when you said you are here for some purpose which is greater than u and I.I fully agree.

Iam also here for some purpose.

No wonder why you are differing from the actual meaning .

Is still under vivada- right? Its "vimatam." Then how come you decided the actual meaning!!Also, as per my earlier thread, Iam still wondering what made you wonder when I also said the same thing ie Asmi is "I exist" (not not necessarily "myself").

Coming to the point on Tarka...you can pick any questions and lets discuss one by one.

Nag :-

Logic and sound reasoning are my moola mantras not my background, my religion or my caste or creed... I guess thats little too much to expect from others too..

I sign off from this thread too.. dont want to be named in certain way...

Good Luck folks

Saranagathi :-

The title can be a Bheda Shruthi view, as tattvavada is a philosophy it has taken account of vedas mostly on the Bheda shruthi.As per the sastraas the major three philosophy says the truth about this or some other mahavakyaas.The vakyaas can be taken in any parameters as acharya saying depending upon the environment & gnana one has on scriptures.

Kesavan :-

Dear Nag

You came into this thread with a fixed conclusion and all the logic presented seem to not shake it or is not allowed to shake it.

I dont see what logic u presented? I guess all the logics were coming from our side only ie tattvavada view. You only stick to one position and didnot answer any of the logical question raised by tattvavada view.I was ready to discuss further, but you are signing off!Its abundantly clear who has fixed conclusion!

Of all the Philosophies, Achrayas Philosophy is most rational, logic based and has sound reasoning. Its not my word, ask the people who have read eastern and western Philosophies. All I presented was what tattvavada Champions like Sri Vysathirtha and Sri Jayathirtha has to say on tattvavada presented by Acharya.

As pointed earlier, you have not given any (pls note ANY) sound reasoning, except for interpreting the sruti ignoring logics and reasoning!

This is open forum, feel free to comeback if you anything further to say.

Saranagathi :-

Have you heard of Bheda, Abheda, Ghataka Sruthies. If you have not come across this terms. please ask the elders or scholars who know more about the philosophy & how the difference of opinion arised for the same vakhyaas of vedanta.

Kesavan :-

Acharya's Tattvavda is not based on certain sruties. Its based on samanvaaya of entire veda and Puranas. Second chapter of Acharyas Bashya on Brahma Sutra is named “Samanvaaya Adhyaya” where in all sruties or puranas having contracdictory meanings have been reconciled.Iam sorry to say, but, Your posting shows your lack of background in Acharyas vedic prasthanas.

Saranagathi :-

The Vedaanta is composed of declarative statements, which impart knowledge regarding the Brahman's Swaroopa (reality-nature), Roopa (Form), Guna (Attributes/Characteristics), Vibhuthi (Property) and Iswaryam (Lordship). Let us do a brief analysis of certain verses of Vedaanta. The Upanishad (Vedaanta-Sruthi) Verses are of three types.

1. Abheda Sruthi2. Bheda Sruthi3. Ghataka Sruthi

The Abheda Sruthis seems to state that the universe (all chit and achit entities) and the Brahman are one and the same. They seem to convey the identity of the universe and the Brahman.

The Bhedha Sruthis seems to categorically declare the difference between the Brahman and the universe.

The Ghataka Sruthi synchronizes the above two types of sruthis and resolves the apparent contradiction in the above mentioned two types of Sruthis. The explanation follows. The following paragraphs are written as simple as possible but still requires lot of concentration to comprehend the meaning of the same. It is requested that the reader should carefully and fully read these paragraphs and then comprehend the same.

So you again check with your people about the difference in sruthies as mentioned before commenting.

Kesavan :-

Dear Saranagati

Before I post, can you tell me- for you entire veda is pramana or only certain shruties?

If entire veda is pramana, then veda cannot teach bheda and abheda at same time?

You are again raising the same arguments.

This thread has discussed Aham BrahmAsmi to state there is no Ahbeda but only Bheda.

Iam happy to discuss all so called mahavakyas one by one.

To start lets create, separate thread to tat tvam asi. Agreed?

Your view is no new one but what is called Bhaskara Achryas siddhanta. Who accepts veda teaches both behda and abheda.

But madhwa has proved that entire veda proves only bedha.

Also pls note there is no concept of so called Mahavakyaas in Dwaita. This is boogey term used in advaita to render all bedha sruties as "attavavadaka" and “anuvadaka”.

Before we go all again and loose the track. I would suggest lets discuss in separate thread. Feel free to dicuss any of the abheda sruties and I will try to put my understanding on tatvavada's take.

Saranagathi :-

This thread has discussed Aham BrahmAsmi to state there is no Ahbeda but only Bheda.DOnt know to laugh or cry on seeing this line.If you want to prove or state something you have to tell to the people who dont know or wont believe that statementWhat the TS does is he didnt want to prove that in advaita as they have understood the meaning of the statement.If you are really understood & can state that there is no abheda only bheda please discuss in this community.http://www.orkut.com/Main#Community?cmm=19399607Just for information. i know its not the requirement to discuss there. But all the people will go only in the path of the birth or Environment they live for choosing the philosophy.

Kesavan :-

Pls dont get over excited. If you have anything to add on to this thread on the captioned subject pls do that.

I have already told in my elsewhere thread that Iam happy to dicuss with anybody.

I have visited the site which you have copied pasted here, but dont see this topic beign discussed there. Instead, I would say you copy paste this thread in that community.

If you have different opinion pls discuss.

Adi :-

You have not brought out any counter for the information i posted. We have shown ample proof regarding Aham BrahmAsmi regarding why a Jiva cant be a Brahman. Rather than indulging in dry statements like above, bring out the counter proofs that dispute our interpretation. In that way, you will enhance your respect in this community..

Saranagathi :-

^^^ I am not an advaitin to prove your saying is wrong by giving proof to the statement ???I dont want to destruct one belief, whatever one believe is right upto him.

But if you have the real Knowledge & wants to prove you have to prove it in the open forum than in place where people have the same belief.Thats the reason for me to give the reference of the external link. as Mr kesavan has not understood properly the different between the sruthis handled in vedanta.

Adi :-

I dont go by what background you are from. I go by what statements you make. You have said that Aham Brahmasmi is an abheda shruti and we have shown here that Aham Brahmasmi is NOT an abheda shruti and how it is to be correctly understood. So the onus is on you to prove that Aham Brahmasmi is an abheda shruti or else please stop passing loose comments.

Please understand that this is a Madhwa Brahmins community and I am obliged to show our community members regarding what Sriman Madhwacharya has said regarding Aham Brahmaasmi. My primary obligation is educating members of this community and not going around the town joining some random advaita communities in orkut and explaining Aham Brahmaasmi. I am not so jobless to do that neither am I interested to do such a thing when I am interested in educating my own people first..

The problem is NOT with Kesavan, but with you for failing to understand the Shruti 'Aham Brahmaasmi' is NOT abheda Shruti. I dont intend to convince you regarding the same but by simply passing certain loose comments, you are only wasting your time and our time in this thread.

Dilip :-

DOnt know to laugh or cry on seeing this line.

Instead of laughing or crying, I would suggest you to learn tatvavAda, that is, if you are truly interested in gaining yatArtha j~jAna.

If you want to prove or state something you have to tell to the people who dont know or wont believe that statement

Irrelevant to current discussion

If you are really understood & can state that there is no abheda only bheda please discuss in this community.

Irrelevant to current discussion. You don’t seem to be adding any matter to the thread!

Just for information. i know its not the requirement to discuss there. But all the people will go only in the path of the birth or Environment they live for choosing the philosophy.

Not always. People follow a particular philosophy depending on their karma and jIva-svabhAva.Ultimately, it is what the jIva grasps that decides its fate.

Saranagathi :-

lets take one more example why i told to have the title as different.

Christ Jesus : An Explanation of ISCKON view.christ means krish that is none other than Sri Hari. so jesus is krishna.What i want to emphasize with this example is.so the real meaning Of christ jesus is given by so called christianity as they have more knowledge on that religon. as ISCKON differentiates from that they have given an a different view of explanation. so its only a view point than the truth.

AHam brahmasmi meaning will do as topic . as you have added as an explanation of tattvavada view. SO there is a possiblity of a real view in different way.

So you try to provide properly to create awareness of Tattvavada Philosophy.

Jay :-

@Saranagathi,

I agree with your comment above. When you discuss your philosophy in an alien community, there you prove your mettle.

But time is the factor. I have seen many such discussions/ or rather fight in so many alien communities.

RK :-

None of us are interested in proving our "mettle" to anybody as we are completely convinced with our Acharya's presentation of the subject and that both Advaita and Visistadvaita are wrong.

If you or anybody have anything logical and relevant to post regarding the post, then we will consider answering further.

But time is the factor. I have seen many such discussions/ or rather fight in so many alien communities.

That is also a reason we shy away from the immature audience.

Pick one Shruti at a time and discuss it in different threads. This thread is about "Aham Brahmasmi" and nothing else should be discussed.

Dear Saranagati,

For once you should read the thread from beginning before telling others to properly create awareness. Instead all you are doing is disrupting the whole thread and posting, actually copy pasting irrelevant stuff.

At the commencement of the Magnum Opus HarikathAmr^itasAra”(HKAS), Shri JagannAtha dAsa with his manifested knowledge chooses to invocate the Lord on the occasion. He says that he will now explain this ‘HarikathAmr^itasAra” with the blessings of his gurus within his limited understanding. He urges the devotees of the Lord to listen to this holyrecital with reverence.

This is the starting stanza of the 32 saMdhis consisting of 988 stanzas of HarikathAmr^itasAra. This must be chanted at the beginning of every saMdhi. HarikathA is the subject here. gurugaLa karuNa – means the kindness of the Lord (and gurus too) leading us to mOxa.

The bhagavadbhaktAs are entitled to this and listening to this HKAS with respect is the relation with this feature. Listening to this HarikathA with bhakti and chanting the same leads to mukti.- the result of our expectations being mOxa.

Good jIvas aim at mukti. Hari is the antarayAmi roopa. The author JagannAtha dAsa seeks the blessings of Lord narasiMha. HarikathA is like a limitless ocean of nectar.

HarikathAmr^itasAra means, only a portion of this nectar, is explained herein. It is impossible to explain the entire ocean.

HarikathA means the story of Hari – as told in the VedAs, Upanishads, and other scriptures. Ramadevi is the abhimAni (One having affectionate pride) for these scriptures. Thus HarikathA could also be understood as RamAdevi.

shrI = radiant, affluent RamAdevi with the affectionate pride of possessing the confidence of the Lord

ramaNi = wife of Lord nArAyaNa

karakamala = lotus like soft hands

pUjita = one who is worshippable

chAru = charming or delightful

charaNa sarOja = worshipped by the lotus like soft hands of RamAdevi

brahma = chaturmukha Brahma

samIra = vAyu devaru

vANi = saraswati devi (and bhArati devi too)

phaNIMdra = seSha devaru, chief of snakes

vIMdra = garuDa devaru, chief of birds

bhav = R^idra devaru

iMdra = iMdra devaru

mukha = by the assemblage of all above devarus

vinuta = sung in praise

nIraja = Lotus flower bloomed in water

bhavAMD = creation of this world – Lord Brahma

udaya = for the creation of this world too

sthiti = and to protect the same

kAraNane = responsible for the creation and protection of this world

kaivalya dAyaka = one who gives mukti-salvation or liberation

nArasiMhane = oh Lord narasiMha

namipe = I bow to you

karuNipudu = please bless me (in this context)

emage = to us who have trusted your lotus feet

maMgaLava = bliss or happiness

Lord Shri LaxmI Narasimha is the family deity of JagannAtha dasa. RamAdevi, the satvaguNAbhimAni devi is always in the service of the Lord with her lotus like soft hands. The Lord’s charming feet are reverentially adorned by Brahma, Saraswati, VAyu, BhArati, GaruDa, sheSha, iMdra; who’s the cause of world’s creation, stability, & destruction.

JagannAtha dAsa pays obeisance to Lord NarasiMha with a sAShTAMga namaskAra. We all know:-

With (i) the chest, (ii) the head, (iii) the eyes/vision, (iv) the mind, and (v) the speech; and also (vi) the feet, (vii) the hands, and (viii) the knees -- such a praNAma is known as `sAshhTAN^ga'.

With chest (heart), head, eyes (sight), mind, oral stotra recitation, and knees on the floor, hands folded, and with knowledge, I bow to you Lord NarasiMha. This is what JagannAtha dasa means. He appeals to the kind Lord to grant bliss to those who have trusted His Lotus Feet.

MahAlaxmI devi is dependent on ShrI Hari although she has several qualities similar to Lord NArAyaNA. However during praLaya i.e. during annihilation of the world He keeps the entire world in his stomach and protects the same. ShrI Hari has limitless qualities. He has immense qualities which cannot be understood completely by anyone.

MahAbhArata, written by VedavyAsa is the jewel of shAstras understood to be the 5th Veda and has the hidden meaning of several prameyAs. Many of the guNAs of ShrI Hari have been explained therein. Although this is a pouruShya graMtha the VEdAs are apouruShya, shR^iti and smR^iti praise the Lord in all sense.

MahAlaxmI dEvi has the capability to reflect upon the guNAs of ShrI Hari stated in these works, within her capability of perception. However when she perceives the guNAs of ShrI Hari beyond her insights of Hari then she recognizes that ShrI HarI has a variety of new guNAs. Thus, She discovers his new guNAs very often.

Saint PuraMdara dAsa says, “nigamakE silukada agaNita mahimana….”

Thus while meditating on various activities of the Lord, She discovers new guNAs and praises the Lord and becomes happy. LaxmI dEvi is the abhmAni dEvatA of the three worldly guNas like sata, raja, tamas. JagannAtha dAsa appeals to this triguNamAni to protect us and keep us happy (chittadali AnaMda sukhavanIvaLu RamA---PuraMdara dAsa).

Atmabhava = son of Lord nArAyaNA (born from the navel of the Lord) andfilled with innumerable good qualities and most liked by Lord. He isBrahma dEva

niRjarasabhA = by GaruDa, shESha R^idra and other demigods

saMsEvya = revered and worshipped by them

R^ijugaNadarasE = R^ijus are those who are devoid of ignorance, not onthe wrong path of life and adore the Lord. There are 200 R^ijus as such.All these R^ijus are entitled to move towards the title ‘Brahma’. Brahmais the ‘arasa’ or king of all R^ijus.

satvaprachura = the proportion of satva guNAs in Brahma being highest

vANI = Saraswati dEvi

mukhasarOja = lotus face

ina = just like the Sun, the lotus flower blossoms in sunshine so alsoSaraswati dEvi’s face blossoms by the radiant rays of Brahma

garuDa = GaruDa dEva

shESha = shESha dEva

shashAMkadaLashEkharara = R^idra dEva or ChaMdrashEkara

janaka = father of GaruDa, shESha & R^idra

jagadguruvE = Brahma is the guru for all the 3 lOkAs. He is thus theguru for mukti entitled jIvAs

twachcharaNagaLige = at your feet

abhi = sAShTAMga namaskAra

vaMdisuve = pay obeisance

pAlipudu = please grant

sanmatiya = good knowledge i.e. divya jnAna

After paying obeisance to ShrI Hari and LaxmI dEvi, JagannAtha dAsa nowpays obeisance to Brahma dEva who is jIvOttama.ShrI Hari directs the worldly phenomenon through Brahma. Brahma means ‘complete’. Brahma possesses maximum knowledge and bliss among the jIvAs thus termed as Brahma. Shri Hari is Parabrahma. Brahma is free from ignorance (about Hari) even during praLaya.

JIvAs with such quality are called R^ijus. There are 200 such R^ijus waiting to become Brahma. Shatanada R^iju obtained the title of Brahma after doing sAdhanA for 100 kalpAs, reaching the level of vAyu and then getting the title of Brahma. He has maximum satva guNAs (goodness qualities).

Brahma is next only to Sri Hari and LaxmI in tAratamya, and is the head of R^iju. Vayu is next in-line or Brahma-elect. That is, in the next kalpa, VAyu will become Brahma and so on. Brahma and VAyu are put in the same class of jIvas.The sons of Brahma - Garuda, Sesha, and Rudra are in the next class of jIvas in the hierarchy.

JagannAtha dAsa pays obeisance to Brahma dEva and urges Him to grantdivya jnAna

abjaja kalpa pariyaMta = abjaj means lotus (ap - in water, ja - born,together this means it is a lotus flower). Brahma is born from the navel of the PadmanAbharUpI paramAtmA. Thus abjaja means Brahma devaru. Kalpa is the life span of Brahma (100 years). Thus 'abjaja kalpa pariyaMta' can be understood thus - till the end of the Brahma kalpa vAyu dEvaru performs 21600 shwAsa japAs per day in three types of jIvAs as stated.

tA rachisi = The inhalation of air is linked to the resonance 'haM' and the exhalation is linked to 'sa'. The complete process of inhalation and exhalation is 'haMsa maMtra' devised by VAyu dEvaru and he alone is sanctioned to execute this maMtra

sAtvarige sukha = to those who are entitled for mukti or liberation or freedom from material consciousness, such jIvAs are granted bliss in VaikuMThalOka

saMsAra mishrarige = to the rAjasic jIvAs (family persons) he grantsmixed experience of bliss and sorrow.

adhamajanarige = for tAmasic jIvAs (extremely cruel jIvAs)

apAraduHkhagaLIva = gives them permanent sorrow

gurupavamAna = jIvOttama vAyudEvaru

salahu = please bestow divyajnAna

emma = to us

After praising Lord shrI LaxmInarasiMha, MahalaxmI dEvi, Brahma dEva in the order of tAratamya, JagannAtha dAsa pays obeisance to VAyu dEvaru. Vayu dEva performs 21600 haMsa maMtra in all the three types of jIvAs till the end of kalpa and then VAyu (MukyaprAna) breaks the liMga dEha of jIvas with his mace and sends them to their respective state; that is, nitya sukha for sAtvik souls, mix of happiness and sorrow to rAjasic souls, and eternal sorrow or hell for tAmasic souls.

Saraswati is the consort of Brahma. Her knowledge remains undestroyed even during praLaya. Her knowledge is flawless, immaculate and especially complete in all respects. She is thus recognized as vEdAbhimAni. Therefore, it is impossible to gain real knowledge of VEdAs without her blessings. She holds the vINA in her hand.

JagannAtha dAsa urges Saraswati dEvi to reside in the configuration of our face. He begs for her juxtaposition on his tongue to enable him to praise the limitless good qualities of shrI Hari with devotion.

kR^itiramaNa = kR^iti is another name for laxmI. ramaNa means herhusband.

pradyumna naMdane = daughter of pradyumna (another name for nArAyaNa)

chaturaviMshati = twenty four

tatvapati = tatvabhimanis (more later)

dEvategaLige = R^idra and other dEvatAs

guruvenisutiha = known as chief

mArutana = vAyu dEva’s

nijapatni = nIta patni - wife

satata = always (again 24 by 7)

hariyali = in nArAyaNa

gurugaLali = in VAyu devaru

sadratiya = extremely sAtvic devotion

pAlisi = please reward me with blessings

bhAgavata = bhAgavata purANa

bhArata = mahAbhArata

purANa = other purANas

rahasya tatvagaLa = secrets of vEdArthA

aruhu = enable me to understand

karuNadali = please kindly

In order to administer the program of world’s creation, stability, destruction and provide salvation to the entitled spirits, Lord nArAyaNa takes forms of aniruddha, pradyumna, saMkarShNa, vAsudEva. To facilitate this function RamAdEvi takes the form of shAMti, kr^iti, jayA and mAyA respectively. BhArati dEvi is the daughter of pradyumna-kR^iti. She is thus called “pradyumna naMdane”.

The creation of this Universe consists of 24 tatvAs as below:-sthUla tatvAsjnAnEMdriyas =5karmEMdriyas =5paMchabhUtAs =5paMchatanmAtra =5

There is one abhimAni dEvatA for each tatva. vAyu dEvaru is the Chief ofall these abhimAni dEvatAs. BhAratI dEvi is the consort of vAyu dEvaru.BharatI is the abhimAni dEvi for bhakti.

JagannAtha dAsa begs her to bestow steady & unbroken bhakti in ShrI Hariand vAyu (guru). He implores her to grant devotional understanding ofthe supremacy of the Lord through the secrets of the hidden meaningstated in bhAgavata, mahAbhArata and other purANAs.

Shri GopAla dAsaru has said in his song, “BhArati bhakutiyanU, koDuvudu,mArutasati nInu”

lOkapavitra = the form which is a Purifier of the Universe (the entitledsouls among the tri-jIvAs are purified after liMga dEha bhaMga)

sucharitra = possessing auspicious history

chhEdha bhEda = dissecting the body with special weapons

viShAda =repentance

kuTila = hatred, deception etc..

aMta = end

Adi = beginning

madhya = center

vidUra = He who is far away from the above faults or demerits (and hasno beginning or end)

AdAnAdi = one who accepts pUjA from Brahma and other demigods

kAraNa = reason to be

bAdarAyaNa = VEdavyAsa dEvaru of Badri

pAhi = please protect

satrANa = by giving me strength to sing your praises

Lord nArAyaNa incarnated himself in the form of VEdavyAsa dEvaru and explained the VEdAs and wrote mahAbhArata too and counseled knowledge to the world. VEdavyAsa dEvaru was the knowledge provider to Brahma, R^idra, iMdra and other dEvatAs. He was not naturally born as other humans but He was a body mass containing mixture of boundless happiness & knowledge.

Naturally His body was not destructible like other human bodies, nor was He affected by earthly happiness or sorrows, diseases or disabilities like us mortals He thus had extraordinary happiness and bravery. He thus had no beginning, or end to His life.

Lord nArAyaNa (VEdavyAsa) cannot be dissected in any way. He has neither hatred nor does he display he deceive anyone, nor does he have any beginning or end. Chanting His holy name purifies us.

JagannAtha dAsa prays with focused attention to bAdarAyANa (or VEdavyAsa dEvaru) with devotion and prays to grant superior strength to praise the Lord.

rachise = took the responsibility of destroying those contradictorymeanings to VEdAs

naDumaneyeMba = person by name ‘madhyagEha’ meaning ‘center house’

brAhmaNana = a brahmin

satiya = his wife

jaTharadoLu = took form in her womb and portrayed that he was born there

avatarisi = descended as an incarnation of

bhAratiramaNa = VAyu dEvaru (husband of BhArati dEvi)

madhvAbhidhAnadi = called as ShrIman MadhvAchArya

chaturadasha lOkadali = in 14 lOkAs

merada = became world famous

apratimage = he who destroyed the 21 contradictory meanings given toVEdAs and established that ViShNu is Supreme

vaMdisuve = I bow to you

maNimaMta and other and other demons (tAmasic souls) were born on thisEarth. In the previous yugas i.e. in tretA yuga and dvAparayuga theywere killed by vAyu and bhIma respectively and these demons vowed to bereborn in kaliyuga and propagate teachings contradictory to the meaningstated in VEdAs.

They publicized that, “I am God, this World is an illusion, jIvAs andBrahma are equal etc.”Then as per the orders from shrI Hari, vAyu dEvaru descended on thisEarth as MadhvAcharya – born to the family of MadhyagEhabhaTTa –vEdavati.

“tR^itIyamasya vR^iShabhasya dOhasEdashapramatiM janayaMta yOShaNaH”

–BaLitthA sUktameaning – this dEva srEShTa vAyu took his third incarnation asMadhvamuni to establish complete knowledge as stated in the VEdAs.

MadhvAcharya then established our well known Madhva siddhaMta that,“Hari is Supreme, VAyu is supreme among jIvAs, this World is real,paMchabhEda (will explain in next stanza) exists.” and he becameillustrious in 14 lOkAs and earned the name as “bhagavad kArya sAdhaka”

vAmadEva = mahaR^idra always thinks about ShrI Hari residing on the leftside of his body (vAma side), thus called vAmadEva

viriMchitanaya = born to Brahma from his eyebrows

umAmanOhara = one who keeps PArvati dEvi happy

ugra = one who is in charge of destruction activity

dhUrjaTi = smoky, mauve color (pale purple color) hair.

sAmaja = elephant’s

ajina = skin

vasanabhUShaNa = decorated as cloth (refer the words“gajacharmAMbarana…..” in the song ‘kaMDe karuNa nidhiya’ written bypuraMdara dAsa.

sumanasa + uttaMsa = higher than iMdra and other dEvatAs

kAmahara = he who reduced Manmatha to ashes by his eyes

kailAsamaMdira = KailAsa mountain is his abode

sOma = has Moon in his left eyes

sUrya = has Sun in his right eyes

anala = has Fire in his forehead

vilOchana = has a special third eye

kAmitaprada = he who grants whatever his devotees ask for

karuNisu = please grant me with Kindliness (Sympathy)

emage = to us

sadA = always

sumaMgaLava = knowledge which is conductive to prosperity

In this verse Jagannatha dAsa pays obeisance to R^idra dEvaru, who is the manObhimani dEvatA. During the creation of this world he was born from the eyebrows of Brahma.

R^idra keeps PArvati dEvi always happy. He obtained the blessing of shrI Hari after performing Prayer and meditation for 10 dina kalpAs under sea water (salt water). He is therefore called ‘ugratapasvi’. R^idra spread his hair across the sky in order to receive Ganga river (which originated from the toe of paramatmA).

He is therefore also called ‘vyOmakEsha’ or ‘dhUrjaTi’. He is covered with an elephant skin. He is the adviser to iMdra and other lesser dEvatAs. He reduced Manmatha to ashes by blowing fire from the third eye on his forehead because he tried to disturb his penance.

KailAsa Mountain is his abode. He has the Moon in his left eye, the Sun in his right eye and Fire in the third eye on his forehead. Since he is the manObhimAni he can fulfill all our desires.

JagannAtha dAsa prays to R^idra to bless us with the knowledge that shrIHari is supreme and lead us to prosperity.

In this stanza, JagannAtha dAsa extends the eminence of R^idra. R^idrais dressed with the tiger skin, has elephant skin on his body. Beforecoming to the position of R^idra he did penance for 40 kalpa under VAyudEvaru and studied the VEda-s. Then he performed penance under the seafor 10 kalpa and pleased saMkarShNa rUpi paramAtma and became famous asdevOttama and obtained the position of shESha.

iMdra had killed a demon called ‘PAka’ thus he is called ‘PAkashAsana’.IMdra is next level below R^idra in tAratamya.

In this stanza, JagannAtha pays obeisance to iMdra and all other dEvatAs, pitR^i dEvatAs, gaMdharvAs, all earthly emperors, and the long list of seers starting for madhvAcharya, followed by padmanAbha tIrtha, narahari tIrtha. He then pays obeisance to all dAsa-s, starting from puraMdara dAsa, vijaya dAsa, until his own master gOpAla dAsa who uplifted him in life.

The fragrance of a blooming flower is carried by air (VAyu) and reaches our nose (j~nAEMdriya), we thus experience the aroma. Also, ‘Fire’ hidden in firewood comes alive as soon as it comes in contact with frictional spark / flames of a yaj~nakuMDa. However that fire cannot be seen until such time at all.

Similarly, shrI Hari resides in the minds of Brahma and other dEvatAs, seeing their knowledge about Him, manifests Himself in them as per their yOgyata but they cannot view His limitless rUpAs and guNAs.

tatvAbhimAni dEvatAs are generally able to perceive the Lord’s as per their j~nAna.

YashOdA dEvi believed that KR^iShNa was just like any other child and when she caught Him stealing butter she chased him and tied Him to a wooden grinding mortar as punishment. He then displayed His greatness and was thus known as dAmOdara. In order to obtain the His special sympathy, the salvation hopeful jIvas must praise the gunAs of immaculate devotees of shrI Hari every moment.